For a number of years Scientists have engaged in a
useless argument on whether or not CO2 is a substantial cause of global warming.
I call it useless, because although it is of extreme importance, I believe the
true answer can be very easily proved by simple inexpensive scientific tests.

For years, the "global warmers"
have claimed that manmade Carbon Dioxide (CO2), a colorless, odorless, invisiblegas, of little substance, but which is
necessary for all of life on earth, is the primary cause of greatly destructive
global warming.

The proponents of the idea of CO2
causing global warming claim that CO2 reflects back heat coming from the earth,
and tends to hold heat to the surface of the earth like clouds do. However, it
is now well established that clouds reflect back more heat coming from the sun,
and tend to have a net cooling effect. The "pro" scientists claim that CO2 does
not reflect the heat coming from the sun, because it is of a different
wavelength than the heat coming from the earth, which it does reflect. I have
searched at length for actual scientific tests that prove the claim, but have
found none. However, I have not found such scientific tests that support the
argument of the "cons," either. There is a lot of empirical evidence argued by
proponents of both sides of the question. In my opinion, the great preponderance
of the empirical evidence, which is primarily statistical and historical, is
that CO2 has little, if any, effect on global warming; and that if it has any
effect, it is toward cooling.

We have plenty of CO2 available . I continually buy
cylinders of it to use in pellet guns that I use for inexpensive target practice
in my garage, to save my traveling so much to my gun club to shoot live
ammunition.

A circular area could be set up with mechanisms along
the edges to shoot out CO2 toward the center, making sure that an amount of CO2
is maintained in the area that is substantially more than the surrounding
similar area. Surface temperatures close to the ground could be measured in the
area where CO2 is concentrated, and compared to the temperatures around the area
outside the concentration.Measurements could also be made at the same
place when the concentrated CO2 was present and then after it dissipated – the only
disadvantage here being that the times of day would be different. This could be
done at various times – both night and day. I believe that such simple tests
would give us a simple scientifically proved answer to the question. Why hasn't
it already been done?

An enormously expensive
research project, CLOUD,[1]
is currently being conducted on the causes of cloud formation, and their effect;
and, as previously stated, it seems to be now well established that the net
effect of clouds is global cooling.
[2]

Thesimple test I am suggesting, could be far more
important than the expensive CLOUD project, and in comparison, its cost would be
minuscule.

From my studies, I have concluded
that the "global warmers" are ruled more by politics and protecting their grant
sources, than they are true science. Politics has no place in science – it
contaminates and controls it. I do not believe that we are
even in a "destructive period of global warming."

If the scientists involved in this global warming
argument are really interested in the truth, rather than politics, why not
conduct the simple experiment suggested, and give us conclusive proof of the
question – once and for all?

If the experiment is done, my prediction is that it will
show that CO2 has a negligible effect on global warming or cooling, because it
has so little substance compared to the water vapor forming clouds; and that any
small effect it may have will be toward cooling rather than warming.

This
is the very opposite of what the "global warmers" have been telling us.